In this first NMA to consider cladribine tablets, ocrelizumab and daclizumab for treatment of RRMS, cladribine tablets are a comparatively effective and safe alternative to other DMTs in both active RRMS and HRA + DAT populations.

Cladribine tablets are a cost-effective alternative to alemtuzumab and natalizumab in the treatment of HDA-RRMS from the perspective of the NHS in England.

Objective. Quantitatively summarize patient preferences for European licensed relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) disease-modifying treatment (DMT) options. Methods. To identify and summarize the most important RRMS DMT characteristics, a literature review, exploratory physician interviews, patient focus groups, and confirmatory physician interviews were conducted in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed and executed to measure patient preferences for the most important DMT characteristics. The resulting DCE data ( n=799 and n=363 respondents in the United Kingdom and Germany, respectively) were analyzed using Bayesian mixed logit models. The estimated individual-level patient preferences were subsequently summarized using 3 additional analyses: the quality of the choice data was assessed using individual-level R2 estimates, individual-level preferences for the available DMTs were aggregated into DMT-specific preference shares, and a principal component analysis was performed to explain the patients’ choice process. Results. DMT usage differed between RRMS patients in Germany and the United Kingdom but aggregate patient preferences were similar. Across countries, 42% of all patients preferred oral medications, 38% infusions, 16% injections, and 4% no DMT. The most often preferred DMT was natalizumab (26%) and oral DMT cladribine tablets (22%). The least often preferred were mitoxantrone and the beta-interferon injections (1%–3%). Patient preferences were strongly correlated with patients’ MS disease duration and DMT experience, and differences in patient preferences could be summarized using 8 principle components that together explain 99% of the variation in patients’ DMT preferences. Conclusion. This study summarizes patient preferences for the included DMTs, facilitates shared decision making along the dimensions that are relevant to RRMS patients, and introduces methods in the medical DCE literature that are ideally suited to summarize the impact of DMT introductions in preexisting treatment landscapes.

BackgroundTherapies may be more efficacious when targeting a patient subpopulation with specific attributes, thereby enhancing the cost-effectiveness of treatment. In the CRYSTAL study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were treated with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI alone until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects or withdrawal of consent.ObjectiveTo determine if stratified use of cetuximab based on genetic biomarker detection improves cost-effectiveness.MethodsWe used individual patient data from CRYSTAL to compare the cost-effectiveness, cost per life-year (LY) and cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone in three cohorts of patients with mCRC: all randomised patients (intent-to-treat; ITT), tumours with no detectable mutations in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2 of the KRAS protein (‘KRAS wt’) and no detectable mutations in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of NRAS (‘RAS wt’). Survival analysis was conducted using RStudio, and a cost-utility model was modified to allow comparison of the three cohorts.ResultsThe deterministic base-case ICER (cost per QALY gained) was £130,929 in the ITT, £72,053 in the KRAS wt and £44,185 in the RAS wt cohorts for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone. At a £50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, cetuximab plus FOLFIRI has a 2.8, 20 and 63% probability of being cost-effective for the ITT, KRAS wt and RAS wt cohorts, respectively, versus FOLFIRI alone.ConclusionScreening for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS may provide the most cost-effective approach to patient selection.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40258-018-0395-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

No abstract